Tag: police state

Klaus Schwab Says Humanity Must Be “Forced Into Collaboration” With Globalist Elites

Speaking at the WEF’s ‘Annual Meeting of the New Champions’, often dubbed the “Summer Davos,” in China, Schwab stated that in order to drive the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” forward, elites must aggressively drive their agenda home.

“To drive future economic growth we must embrace innovation and force the collaboration across sectors, regions, nations, and cultures to create a more peaceful, inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future,” Schwab proclaimed.

He added, “At this critical juncture the active participation of all stakeholders is essential to ensure a sustainable development path.”

In another clip, Schwab touted AI and other technologies becoming ubiquitous as a reason why humanity must “work together” with the global elite.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to COVID-19 Shot Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected appeals to two COVID shot mandate-related cases brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD). In one case, CHD appealed a lower court ruling that the non-profit group lacked standing to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its authorization of the COVID-19 shots for young children. In the other case, CHD challenged the COVID shot mandate for students at Rutgers University in New Jersey.1

The Supreme Court did not issue an explanatory statement along with their denial of these appeals.2 By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the opinions of the lower court to stand.3

Appellate Court Dismissed CHD’s Claims Against the FDA

CHD, together with five sets of parents, sued the FDA over its emergency use authorization COVID shots for minors. The District Court dismissed the case finding that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and the 5th Circuit Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. Plaintiffs alleged that when the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to distribute the experimental biologicals, it did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) reasoned decision-making requirements. Plaintiffs sought an injunction forbidding the marketing or promotion of the shots.4

A Plaintiff will have standing to sue when it has been demonstrated that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is, “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;” the defendant caused the injury; and the injury would likely be redressed by the court.5 The injury must also be concrete, which has been defined as “whether the alleged injury to the Plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”6

The Appellate Court agreed with the District Court that the Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of showing that their injury was concrete, particularized or imminent, rather than merely speculative.

The Appellate Court wrote:

To begin, it is insufficient that Plaintiff allege that some hypothetical third party might, at some hypothetical point in the future and through some hypothetical means, will vaccinate their children against their wishes.7

The Appellate Court added that CHD also lacked standing because the organization has not “diverted significant resources to counteract” the EUA granted to the COVID shots by the FDA. The Appellate Court ruling went on to state that the Plaintiff also has not shown that the FDA’s authorization, “concretely and ‘perceptibly impaired’” its ability to fulfill their mission. The courts dismissed the action due to lack of standing.8

Keep reading

Outraged Citizen Unleashes on City Council For Passing One of the Nation’s Toughest Hate Crime Laws

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, now has one of the nation’s toughest hate crime laws.

The Coeur d’Alene City Council unanimously approved a new hate crime ordinance, introducing a significant addition to the municipal code. 

This new chapter establishes a separate offense for individuals who commit an existing offense with a bias motive, Krem2 reported.

The Idaho Tribune described the law as “draconian,” arguing it “will basically make it illegal to think the wrong way.”

“If found guilty, you’ll be sentenced to ‘[re]education.’”

Keep reading

Court: Doctors Threatened For Questioning The Covid Regime Can Sue Tyrannical Credentialing Boards

In a landmark case, an appellate court judge has ruled that physicians threatened by credentialing boards for speaking out against Covid policies and abortion have sufficient standing in court.

A year after the case was dismissed by a district court, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Educational Foundation filed an appeal for the right to sue the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for “coordinated” attempts to “censor and chill the speech of physicians,” especially those “who spoke critically of positions taken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, mask mandates, Covid vaccination, and abortion.”

A district court judge had ruled AAPS lacked standing and denied AAPS’s attempt to amend the claim. But in a decision filed June 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the dismissal, and the case has now been remanded to a lower court for discovery and potentially a full trial.

Keep reading

Michigan and Penn. Capitol Sent Bomb Threats, Staffers Blame the FBI

The Michigan and Pennsylvania state capitols were both evacuated on Sunday after receiving bomb threats, “in the name of Palestine,” but some doubt the threats were genuine, blaming the FBI instead.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Michigan State Rep. Steve Carra, who said that the threat, if genuine, demonstrates the left’s commitment to political violence. The Michigan capitol has been the scene of angry pro-Palestine demonstrations in recent months.

“The radical left threatens death and destruction in an attempt to get their way and plants operatives at conservative rallies to incite violence, making it look like conservatives are extremists. Then government and the mainstream media pushes their narrative over the truth,” he said.

Rep. Carra continued that the threat could just as easily have been another operation led by the FBI, like the Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping” plot, to sow confusion and political division.

He described such behaviour as “treasonous activity” and added, “quite frankly it’s repulsive that mainstream media aids and abets this dangerous behavior by peddling disinformation narratives instead of reporting on facts.”

Keep reading

How do you know the FDA is a captured agency?

How sweet—the FDA shows us a multiracial July 4 barbecue, warning us about the possibility of food poisoning when sharing food with friends. (I had to chop off the heads of the partiers so the page would fit on the screen, but believe me there was a red, white and blue theme.)

Of all the issues FDA has to deal with: food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, what do you think might be most important? What do you want to tell the public about?

Maybe drug shortages, or drug recalls? Drug side effects? Food recalls? Medical device problems? New drug approvals?

Nope.

First we get the kindergarten lessons, telling us the difference between hot foods and cold foods. Message: worry about your food.

Second, we hear about avian flu, though no one has ever caught avian flu from eating or drinking anything. Let no opportunity to scare people about avian flu get wasted! If you click on the page you get a bunch of fluff and this:

“Collectively, these studies provide strong assurances that the commercial milk supply is safe.”  So why even mention it?

Third, we are told to stop the spread of misinformation. Did you know that FDA has a Rumor Control service where you can be helped to snitch to social media companies about misinformation on their platforms? Isn’t this a First Amendment violation? Who knows, these day?

Keep reading

120+ years of legalized, US-government-led pharmaceutical fraud.

Since December 2023, I’ve researched and written a series of reports1 tracking the development of federal Congressional laws and federal agency non-regulations that have non-regulated the licensing and manufacture of biological products and vaccines from 1944 to the present.

The series so far focuses on the period since 1972, when the fake biological product regulation program was fake-transferred from NIH to FDA.

The record of laws passed by Congress, signed by US Presidents, implemented through the US Code of Federal Regulations, with rule changes published in the Federal Register, and upheld by federal and state courts, confirm that biological product and vaccine licensing, cGMP-compliance monitoring and related programs allegedly operated by the US Food and Drug Administration have been nothing more than pretextual, deceptive acts carried out to elicit and maintain broad public compliance with vaccination programs, because vaccines are actually intentionally harmful biological weapons developed, manufactured, promoted and distributed jointly by the federal Public Health Service and pharmaceutical companies, and vaccinators don’t want targets to know it.

Keep reading

Australia’s Chief Censor To Force Online Digital ID Within Six Months

It’s really a no-brainer both for politicians and those crafting the wording and perception of their policies.

Namely – if you want genuinely complex and controversial initiatives (such as those related to mass surveillance and privacy infringements) fast-tracked both in legislatures and the media/public, just frame them as geared toward “child safety.”

Job done. Not many will even attempt to stand up to this, even if arguments in favor are patently disingenuous.

One gets the sense this is what Australia’s “chief censor” – eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant – is there to do – and she seems to understand her assignment well. Whether she succeeds, though, is a whole different question.

For right now, Grant is not letting up on trying to attack online security and privacy via demands for swift implementation of age verification schemes by online platforms.

Grant is now setting a six-month deadline and threatening mandatory codes unless these platforms play along.

It might bear repeating, and louder, “for the people in the back”: The only way to truly verify anyone’s age online is for adults with a government-issued ID to present a copy of it to the platforms ruling the internet – ruled by governments.

This effectively destroys online anonymity, and in many countries and under many regimes, people’s (physical) safety.

Keep reading

Rapper B.G. Ordered To Turn Over New Song Lyrics to the Feds

Last week, a federal judge ruled that B.G., a rapper known for the hit 1999 song “Bling Bling,” must give the government copies of the lyrics to any new songs as a condition of his supervised release. While prosecutors can generally place a wide range of otherwise illegal restrictions on released prisoners’ conduct, critics argue this restriction is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

In 2012, B.G., whose real name is Christopher Dorsey, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for illegal gun possession and obstruction charges. After serving 11 years, Dorsey was released in February. In May, prosecutors filed a motion alleging that Dorsey had violated the terms of his bond by publishing songs “where he once again glorifies murder, drug dealing, and threatens those who cooperate with the police.” 

“Mr. Dorsey’s conduct directly contradicts the goals of supervised release—rehabilitation and becoming a responsible, law-abiding member of our community,” prosecutors write. “There is no way that any reasonable person can view these new videos…with an understanding of Mr. Dorsey’s past, and conclude that Mr. Dorsey was taking his rehabilitation seriously.” 

Prosecutors requested that Dorsey be prohibited from “promoting and glorifying future gun violence/murder and obstructive conduct in his songs and during his concerts.” Last Friday, New Orleans federal judge Susie Morgan denied this request, writing that the condition might be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Dorsey’s speech.

“The Court finds that, without question, the additional condition is not sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide for the Defendant’s conduct and for those entrusted with his supervision,” Morgan wrote. But despite this admission, she still placed a serious restriction on Dorsey’s speech. “To address the legitimate concerns expressed by the Government, the Court will impose a special condition that the Defendant provide the United States Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics of any song he writes, in advance of his production or promotion of such song, and that those lyrics be shared with the Government.”

While this restriction sounds outrageous, supervised release is a convoluted mess for many former prisoners. “When it was created in 1984, federal supervised release was supposed to be used sparingly to keep tabs on offenders who were public safety concerns or needed extra support to transition back into society,” Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella wrote last month. “However, it’s become used by default…and it’s sending many others back to prison for minor rule violations that might not warrant such a harsh response.”

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Just Opened the Door to a New Orwellian Censorship Regime

The Supreme Court’s decision in a recent case challenging the Biden administration’s censorship efforts unleashed renewed threats to Americans’ ability to speak and listen freely online while effectively putting a legal remedy out of reach ahead of the 2024 election, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Last year on Independence Day, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty issued the initial injunction blocking a range of government agencies from communicating with social media companies to suppress speech, calling the government’s actions “Orwellian.” But one year later, with the Fifth Circuit’s narrower injunction now lifted by the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, officials have free rein to again employ the same tactics.

“It’s basically a roadmap for government actors, not just the federal government, but also state and local government actors, to reach out to social media companies and pressure them into censoring this disfavored speech,” Center for American Liberty associate counsel Eric Sell told the DCNF.

The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in the case, who included two states and five individuals, did not have standing to seek an injunction against the government.

In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the plaintiffs failed “to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms.” She also noted that platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to establish they were harmed directly as a result of the government’s requests.

Justice Samuel Alito worried in his dissent that the Supreme Court’s ruling, though it did not reach the merits of the issue, would send the message that coercive government campaigns against certain speech can run unchecked if “carried out with enough sophistication.”

Keep reading